172 SEVENTEENTH REPORT. 



agree very well with those of specimens of CeanoOms sanguineus, col- 

 lected by Henderson in Oregon and now in the herljarium of Parke, 

 Davis & Co.; also with Ceanothus Oreganus as shown on t. 5177 of 

 the Botanical Magazine. There can be no doubt that the plant is 

 either Ceanothus sanguineus or a new species closely allied to it. Rocky 

 woods at Copper Harbor, Farwell No. 391o| Oct. 17, 1914. 



Circaea Lutetiana L. ^'ar. intermedia (Ehrh) N. Comb. 



Circaea intermedia, Ehrh. Beitr. 4, 42, 1790 (?) 



Circaea alpina Lin. Var. intermedia (Ehrh) D. C, Prod. 3, 63, 1828. 

 FarAvell No. 3814^ August 9, 1914. Rich woods near Rochester. 



Circaea Lutetiana L. Var. alpina (Lin.) N. Comb. 



Circaea alpina Lin. Sp. PI. 1, 9, 1753. 



There is a perfect gradation between C. Lutetiana and C. alpina 

 through the varieties Canadensis and intermedia and it therefore seems 

 best to unite the species. Indeed, this was accomplished by Sprengel 

 in his edition of the Systema Vol. 1, 89 in 1825 and he did not there 

 consider any of the forms worthy of being distinguished even by varietal 

 names. 



Vaccinium Pennsylvanicum Lam. Var. myrtilloides (Mx.) Fernald. 



This i)ubescent form of the common low Ijlueberrj' is frequent at 

 Algonac, where I collected it in 1914 and probably throughout the state. 

 As indicated by Mr. Fernald it has been confused with T^ Canadense. 

 Farwell No. 3638 and No. 3639, May 24, 1914. 



AMELANCHIER. 



So much has been written about these plants by botanists of all 

 times that it seems hardlj^ possible that there is anything left to write 

 about. Confusion has arisen by a misinterpretation of descriptions or 

 by actually ignoring them. The "Species" of Linnaeus differed widety 

 from the "species" as understood todaj' by such progressive botanists 

 as are perusing an intensive study of systematic botany. The species 

 listed in the Species Plantarum are not based upon type specimens as 

 are species of today; that work is primarily an application of the bi- 

 nomial system to plants that had been described by other botanists 

 under the polynomial i^hrases according to the custom of old. It 

 would not be surprising, therefore, if Linnaeus, under his broad concept 

 of a species, included under a specific name some references which at 

 the present time would not be considered as appertaining thereto, or 

 that even Linnaeus, himself, ujion a better knowledge of them, would 

 accept as having ]:)een i)roi)erly referred. It is not too much to say 

 that the advanced student of systematic botany with his proclivities 

 for intensive work now looks ui)on most species of Linnaeus as aggre- 

 gates. 



